Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Good morning Alek.
Please allow me to quote myself from a previous post that you seemed to have missed.

It does apear that you have a problem with the "Big Bad Government" and that seems to be driving your thoughts here. Of course I could be wrong but you seem to be very selective about what you accept as evidence.

JPK

Good morning.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere. The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Pre 9/11, Americans were polarized on civil liberties issues. The fear and hysteria subsequent to 9/11 changed all that with the passage of the Patriot Act, and now the Real ID act. Then began the consolidation of a number of US government agencies into a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

You're probably at least mostly aware of what happend in Afghanistan and what is going on in Iraq.

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my vanity.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere.

Names?

Originally Posted by Alek

The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Proof?

Originally Posted by Alek

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my sanity.

Sounds a bit like she tried to have it both ways. Anonymous, with authority derived from her position at the University.

Quote:

3) As soon as I pasted the 9/11 Truth link, delphi_ote obtained her identity through cross reference and began personally attacking her.

Wait a second. It was you who pointed out her identity in post #104! By the time you brought it up several messages had been passed regarding the ineptness of that website's physics. You are telling lies and trying to make Delphi look like a stalker.

Quote:

4) Taking issue with her article, and instead of countering or debunking her article in a public forum, he instead sent a private email to university authorities trying to get her in trouble.

WRONG! Delphi already had nailed the physics in that article is being poor (as had others).

As for the the wrongness of what she is doing, read what Delphi actually wrote instead of going off on a tantrum:

[QUOTE = Delphi_ote]
Many of the claims on this website are patently false, particularly some of the elementary physics presented. Dr. Wood seems reluctant to publish her name and profession directly on the website, but openly uses them to promote the website (as you can see clearly in this press release from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200603.../prweb352979_1 and on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.)

It seems unethical that she would use her PhD and Professor of Mechanical Engineering status to promote her writings, but not open said writings to proper peer review by hiding her name entirely on the actual documents. It also seems dishonest that she would claim to be a full professor when she is currently an assistant professor.
[/quote]

There are problems here. Big problems. You may understand them, but they are problems.

Quote:

5) We have freedom of speech in this country, which means that people have the right to express their belief, no matter how controversial or wrong.

I'll explain it again: In the USA we have the right not to be jailed for free speech. The means that you will not go to jail for giving an opinion. That does not mean you can inflate your credentials or use your employer's cerdentials to promote personal agendas if the employer does not approve. Oh, you certainly can do it, but there will be consequences from your employer if they do not appreciate what they you are saying.

Again, you do not understand what "free speech" means. It is not freedom from consequences, especially when lies are being told.

Quote:

Irrelevant, ridiculous analogy.

Nope. It is very apt. In fact, one might argue that what she has done is worse.

Quote:

The Stasi flourished because of a network of snitches and spies who formed a human surveillance grid. delphi_ote's behavior is typical of the slime in question. The fact that you think she may lose her job, and the fact that you think she should lose her job is more evidence of your apparent retardation, and abject ignorance as to what this country is all about. You're no better than the sniveling coward who wrote the letter.

You are basicly saying that no one should be reporting misconduct, and if they do, they are the equivelant of secret police? Wonderful attitude you've got there. Were you a schoolyard bully as a kid?

Quote:

The consequences in this case should have been a reasoned rebuttal in a public forum, not some vain attempt to tattle on the speaker. You're not bright enough to grok this.

No, you are not bright enough to grasp the consequences of ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. Get it through your head! She is not innocent in this matter! If she was, Delphi would have been told to flake off by the University. Instead, they seem to be taking this matter rather seriously.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere. The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Pre 9/11, Americans were polarized on civil liberties issues. The fear and hysteria subsequent to 9/11 changed all that with the passage of the Patriot Act, and now the Real ID act. Then began the consolidation of a number of US government agencies into a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

You're probably at least mostly aware of what happend in Afghanistan and what is going on in Iraq.

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my vanity.

Thanks for the reply. I will not have time to respond until the tomorrow.
But perhaps you can state when you feel this plan was starting to take shape? When did they plant the bombs in the WTC? Were they there all along? What other buildings do you think are presently rigged to blow?
Is it safe to assume that you believe Bin Laden was working on this with these powerfull elements in the Government?

JPK

__________________"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier... A belief's a dangerous thing. People die for it. People kill for it."
Rufus, the 13th apostle, Dogma
"You can't prove air." Sylvia Browne
John Kardel

I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.

Your "evidence" was exposed as the BS it is. Let's review:

Let's review:
1. The WTC shouldn't have fallen, it was designed to withstand the impact of a airliner. This was shown to be a gross mischaracterization.

2. The WTC couldn't have fallen only due to the planes hitting it and subsequent fires. This was shown to be false, as every single structural engineering report agrees w/ the official reasons for collapse.

3. WTC 7 was hardly dameged, but fell anyway. Shown to be false, after which you changed your tune to:

4. WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition due the fact no other steel building had collapsed due to fire. Shown to be false, as the steel portion of the Madrid tower did collapse. And the video shows what you think are "squibs" only appear after the building begins to collapse. In addition, firefighters near WTC 7 reported hearing the building beginning to collapse, and the videos and pictures show it is kinking and bending before it collapsed.

5. Seismic data shows tremors from the WTC before they collapsed. Shown to be false, using the very data you cited.

6. Shaky video that proves nothing.

In addition, you have not shown (or even offered a half-assed theory of) how the many tons of explosives necessary could have been installed and wired together w/o anyone noticing.

Just repeating that, since Alek seems to have missed it. Because, AFAIK, that was all of his evidence.

Thanks for the reply. I will not have time to respond until the tomorrow.
But perhaps you can state when you feel this plan was starting to take shape? When did they plant the bombs in the WTC? Were they there all along? What other buildings do you think are presently rigged to blow?
Is it safe to assume that you believe Bin Laden was working on this with these powerfull elements in the Government?

JPK

I don't know when it started to take shape. I'm not an investigator in New York, but a mere citizen in San Diego. I'm less trying to theorize and more trying to illustrate the flaws in the official conspiracy theory involving 19 arab hijackers.

As for when they may have rigged the buildings, consider this from a man named Scott Forbes:

Consider also that George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin was a director of Securecom, a firm which provided security not only to the WTC complex but also Dulles international airport, and United Airlines. This is documented in Loose Change.

As for the notion that bombs were there all along, I don't put any credence in that. A man named Peter Lance has suggested that the WTC 7 building might have been pre-wired with explosives at its construction. Lance, if I recall correctly, believes the official conspiracy theory is true, but that the government is covering up some of the details so as to absolve it of claims of negligence. He claims the nature of the tenants at the building is such that would suggest them having the ability to quickly destroy the building and its sensitive contents. The list of WTC 7 tenants included IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, SEC, and Secret Service.

I believe Lance is trying to offer up a legitimate reason for what to many appears to be a controlled demolition of the WTC 7 building.

I have no reason to believe any other buildings are presently rigged to blow. If you want me to speculate on the next "terrorist" attack, I would guess that it will be biological in nature. A biological attack would enable the government to suspend or eliminate the US constitution (as fmr. US General Tommy Franks has suggested) virtually everywhere via large scale quarantine operations.

French intelligence reported that Bin Laden received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai, UAE a few months prior to 9/11, where he allegedly met with a CIA section chief.

I tend to think Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset, much like Saddam Hussein. It's worth noting that the only evidence linking him to 9/11 is the confession tape, supposedly made from a cave in Afghanistan. Many have questioned the authenticity of this tape, and it contradicts an alleged statement made by Bin Laden denying culpability for 9/11. As I pointed out earlier, Buzzy Krongard, a former high-ranking CIA executive has admitted in a London Times article that he thinks we'd all be better off if Bin Laden remained free. Does this represent official CIA policy? I suppose a lot of Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11 would like to know.

I don't know when it started to take shape. I'm not an investigator in New York, but a mere citizen in San Diego. I'm less trying to theorize and more trying to illustrate the flaws in the official conspiracy theory involving 19 arab hijackers.

As for when they may have rigged the buildings, consider this from a man named Scott Forbes:

Oh goody, the mysterious Scott Forbes again! Alek, is there any evidence at all this "Scott Forbes" guy actually exists/existed? Does it make sense that this is the only record of such a power-down, when tens of thousands of people worked in those buildings? Does it make sense that none of the many large banks and other financial institutions housed in the WTC buildings would tolerate a 36 hour power-down, where there would be no security? Why does no one else remember what would certainly have been a major event for the many companies working there?

I call BS on this power-down, until you have more evidence.

Quote:

Consider also that George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin was a director of Securecom, a firm which provided security not only to the WTC complex but also Dulles international airport, and United Airlines. This is documented in Loose Change.

Ooooh, now that's what I call rock-solid evidence, pardon me while I laugh in your face.

Quote:

As for the notion that bombs were there all along, I don't put any credence in that. A man named Peter Lance has suggested that the WTC 7 building might have been pre-wired with explosives at its construction. Lance, if I recall correctly, believes the official conspiracy theory is true, but that the government is covering up some of the details so as to absolve it of claims of negligence. He claims the nature of the tenants at the building is such that would suggest them having the ability to quickly destroy the building and its sensitive contents. The list of WTC 7 tenants included IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, SEC, and Secret Service.

I believe Lance is trying to offer up a legitimate reason for what to many appears to be a controlled demolition of the WTC 7 building.

A rare moment of common sense kicking in, Alek?

Quote:

I have no reason to believe any other buildings are presently rigged to blow.

Nor have you yet presented any evidence that the WTC was demolished by explosives either.

Quote:

If you want me to speculate on the next "terrorist" attack, I would guess that it will be biological in nature. A biological attack would enable the government to suspend or eliminate the US constitution (as fmr. US General Tommy Franks has suggested) virtually everywhere via large scale quarantine operations.

And that, of course, is something every US politician mastubates to...

Quote:

French intelligence reported that Bin Laden received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai, UAE a few months prior to 9/11, where he allegedly met with a CIA section chief.

I tend to think Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset, much like Saddam Hussein. It's worth noting that the only evidence linking him to 9/11 is the confession tape, supposedly made from a cave in Afghanistan. Many have questioned the authenticity of this tape, and it contradicts an alleged statement made by Bin Laden denying culpability for 9/11. As I pointed out earlier, Buzzy Krongard, a former high-ranking CIA executive has admitted in a London Times article that he thinks we'd all be better off if Bin Laden remained free. Does this represent official CIA policy? I suppose a lot of Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11 would like to know.

so by your rational, that the American Government intentionally allowed/set up the events of 9/11 to take place, would you also say that both the Spanish and British governments allowed/set up the atrocities that occurred on their soil? After all, the bombings in these countries were due to those countries involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you honestly think that so many people could be paid off to keep quiet?

so by your rational, that the American Government intentionally allowed/set up the events of 9/11 to take place, would you also say that both the Spanish and British governments allowed/set up the atrocities that occurred on their soil? After all, the bombings in these countries were due to those countries involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you honestly think that so many people could be paid off to keep quiet?

Sarah

I have not researched the 3/11 nor the 7/7 bombings in Madrid and London, so I don't want to speculate on who was responsible or why.

For a number of reasons I think it is a gross oversimplification to suggest that the alleged suppression of the truth of these events is dependent on paying a lot of people off. If indeed these are false flag attacks carried out by intelligence agencies, then they are the work of highly sophisticated and resourceful individuals who would employ a minimum of assets in order to execute them.

Intelligence agencies use a number of tactics to preserve secrecy, including compartmentalization, threats, blackmail, and bribes. They also make use of human assets who are already sympathetic to the cause which is served by the operation, such that there is no conflict of interest in the minds of these people.

If the media repeats the same lie over and over, for many people it creates the perception of truth. In this context, it is extremely difficult for whistleblowers or alternate accounts to come forward. When they do, their credibility is weighed, if only subconsciously, against the supreme credibility of the media and often disparaged.

I suspect this is the paramount reason for why people tend to believe big lies. It is less a function of keeping secrets from being revealed, and more a function of keeping revealed secrets from being believed.

“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

If indeed these are false flag attacks carried out by intelligence agencies, then they are the work of highly sophisticated and resourceful individuals who would employ a minimum of assets in order to execute them.

You seem to be using Occam's Razor here. Maybe you should apply it to the rest of your argument.

“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Do you know anything about "The Big Lie?" You're using an evil man's paranoid anti-Semetic ravings about a Jewish conspiracy to keep the Germans down to back up your position about this U.S. government conspiracy theory. Your use of this quote is sympathetic to Hitler's position on the Jews.

Maybe you guys have more in common with the Holocaust Deniers than I thought.

Alek, forgive me if this sounds too personal, but I'm trying to understand your point of view.

You are confused as to what constitutes evidence because you are thinking with your heart. You are obviously a sensitive person, for you want what's best for your country, and above all, are against war. This guides almost all your decision-making, but it's getting you in a muddle. You seem to 'want to believe' the Loose Change-type stories, yet you say you would like to be convinced by the official version of events. May I suggest looking within, and trying to re-read the replies in this thread with an open heart, and let your head make up its own mind.

You will still be a good person if you come to the conclusion that the official investigation was not a cover-up, but don't take my word for it, re-read the thread. If you come across something that seems like a personal insult, it will mean nothing to you if you admit you have made an honest mistake in believing others like yourself who have let their opposition to war misguide their reasoning.

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

(I wanted to add that paragraph just after I'd posted, but couldn't connect to the forum so now I'm past the editing time limit.)

Alek, forgive me if this sounds too personal, but I'm trying to understand your point of view.

You are confused as to what constitutes evidence because you are thinking with your heart. You are obviously a sensitive person, for you want what's best for your country, and above all, are against war. This guides almost all your decision-making, but it's getting you in a muddle. You seem to 'want to believe' the Loose Change-type stories, yet you say you would like to be convinced by the official version of events. May I suggest looking within, and trying to re-read the replies in this thread with an open heart, and let your head make up its own mind.

Thanks for the compliments. I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that. I tend to think with my head as opposed to my heart. I do consider myself a patriot, and I am not simply anti-war. I'm pro-constitution, and pro-freedom. I am against unjust wars made on false pretenses. Unfortunately, I don't "want to believe" the government lied, I know it, both logically and intuitively. This country is in deep, deep trouble, and the only hope is that people first face the truth. There can be no solutions without facing up to the horrible truth. I want to believe I'm wrong, but I don't. With the exception of a few, no one here has displayed an open mind or an open heart. Your advice is just as good for them as it is for me.

Quote:

You will still be a good person if you come to the conclusion that the official investigation was not a cover-up, but don't take my word for it, re-read the thread. If you come across something that seems like a personal insult, it will mean nothing to you if you admit you have made an honest mistake in believing others like yourself who have let their opposition to war misguide their reasoning.

I am and always have been a "good" person. Honestly, I don't think anyone here is able to convince me that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is anything other than a pack of lies. Re-reading the thread isn't going to change my mind. I've resolved to drop the insults, I'm simply going to ignore those who I deem not credible and not earnest. I'm willing to debate anyone here on these most important issues, because I certainly don't have a monopoly on the truth of what happend that day. But make no mistake about it; I am here to serve a warning.

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

The US government funded the Mujahedeen in the '80s as they repelled the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Elements of the Mujahedeen became the Taliban.

The globalists who control the US government have created these monsters, and have embroiled us into unjust wars on the basis of lies and deceit. I am not afraid of "terrorists" because I know who the real terrorists are. The same ones who are leaving our borders wide open, yet who force me to remove my shoes before I board an airplane. The same ones who have passed the Patriot act, and the Real ID act, and who have tried to pass legislation repealing the 22nd amendment. The same ones who run torture camps at Guantanemo bay and elsewhere, and who have authorized and apologized for torture at Abu Ghraib. The same ones who needed a new Pearl Harbor. I'm not grateful to these criminal scum, I'm outraged. I'm outraged by my ignorant countrymen who sell our freedoms down the river for the illusion of security. I am encouraged, however. People are waking up. Perhaps not on this forum, but they are waking up. There is hope yet.

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

Is there any evidence of any connection between Sadam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

Is there any evidence of any connection between Sadam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

No. And the question of whether or not the war in Iraq was justified (it clearly wasn't, based on the reasons given by the Bush administration before the invasion) is a completely separate issue from whether or not there was US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Let's not muddle the two.

And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack.

I'm re-reading the thread as suggested by another poster. I believe Luke T. has misunderstood something here. The hole they're referring to in Loose Change was documented in photographs shortly after the impact of whatever hit the Pentagon. Here is a picture of the hole:

Luke's picture above depicts the pentagon after the roof collapsed, so there is no inconsistency in the movie there.

I pointed this out in the thread before, but I couldn't link to images.

I'm re-reading the thread as suggested by another poster. I believe Luke T. has misunderstood something here. The hole they're referring to in Loose Change was documented in photographs shortly after the impact of whatever hit the Pentagon. Here is a picture of the hole:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Is Kilsheimer in on the conspiracy too, Alek? And just how big is this conspiracy, please give a rough estimate. It would have to include all of these people too, and this is just a small portion of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash:

Quote:

"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001

"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I donât know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up upred, everything red,' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002

"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001 "On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angleâalmost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

Personally, I'm trying to remain skeptical on the whole issue. I don't trust any Bush as far as I could throw them, and I certainly think that any fundie Christian with money and power ought to be shot anyway; but to suggest that Bush could have orchestrated something to THIS scale is ludicrous.

So you're the advocating murder of people who you don't tolerate, while simultaneously showing your ignorance of the fact that Bush isn't even a "Christian". That's more than a little disturbing.

No. And the question of whether or not the war in Iraq was justified (it clearly wasn't, based on the reasons given by the Bush administration before the invasion) is a completely separate issue from whether or not there was US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Let's not muddle the two.

I hated to bring it up, but it seems to me it is muddled in Alek's mind.

I also hate discussing politics, especially when the term I feel compelled to refer to is 'axis of evil'.

So the author agrees that many of the arguments for a conspiracy debunked in the PM article are specious. Glad to see a guy who doesn't buy every wild eyed claim that supports his theory. His argument that debunking these same points he doesn't agree with makes the article flawed is somewhat less than compelling. That the article has not sought out and debunked every possible theory is hardly a suprise. That they had not sought out his personal favorite evidence is not evidence of it's ineffectiveness, it's evidence of the vast amount of plainly wrong information out there.

One must enjoy the irony of him complaining about ad hominem attacks in the PM article given his opening paragraph

Quote:

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

At the end he claims this is an ad hominem:

Quote:

I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.

__________________"The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." - Joseph Campbell

We cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home. —Edward R. Murrow